We plan to have a full-scale mockup of a Cygnus spacecraft (Service Module plus a Pressurized Cargo Module) at the National Space Symposium at the Broadmore in Colorado Springs which starts Moday April 12 (by the way, we're sponsoring the opening fireworks...)

If you happen to be at the NSS, you can't miss it: it will be by the lake, to the right of the bridge that crosses the lake.

We plan to have a full-scale mockup of a Cygnus spacecraft (Service Module plus a Pressurized Cargo Module) at the National Space Symposium at the Broadmore in Colorado Springs which starts Moday April 12 (by the way, we're sponsoring the opening fireworks...)

If you happen to be at the NSS, you can't miss it: it will be by the lake, to the right of the bridge that crosses the lake.

I have friends there, I'll pester them to take pictures.

Logged

chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Good question! Also, is a fuel-only cygnus possible, which can be used as a tug?

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Careful... not all the volume is dedicated to pressurized cargo - some have equipment in the pressurized volume - and some of that is lost on the hatch mechanism/opening swept volume and the "free space" (space for the astronauts to get inside and get the cargo out - hint: Progress has NO free space: you unload it from the top down...)

You may be interested in this old presentation from the early Cygnus design days. The actual "basic" PCM we ended up with is somewhere in between the "regular" and the "+" version in that presentation, with a total pressurized volume of 18.7 m3, and a useable cargo volume of about 12-13 m3. The "enhanced" version (to go with the liquid-second-stage Taurus II) has a whopping 19m3 of useable cargo volume (out of about 26m3 total pressurized vol).

Moral(s) of the story: a) Not all volume is pressurized and b) Not all pressurized volume is useable for cargo.

Do not pay too much attention to the spacecraft sketches - much has changed (single main engine, location of RCS jets, location of grapple fixture, etc. etc.) However, it is a curious insight into the design process... how much changes in less than two years!

Quote from: kkattula on 04/28/2010 08:31 PM(Is it just me, or does it look like a giant beer keg with solar panels bolted on? Hmmm beer... )

Well form does follow function, and I can think of no finer form to share than an icey steel vessel of great beer. This could result in some interesting traditions. Resupply missions could be refered to as "beer runs" out of Wallops. ISS crews could refer to opening the Cygnus as "tapping the keg". I now know how I will properly toast the sucess of Cygnus. I've always liked the concept of this spacecraft and this just makes me like it even more.

I wonder about the heritage of the Cygnus pressurized section. Does Alena produce any other system with the same diameter?

Yes, I know that Alenia makes MPLMs, but they have a much larger diameter.

Excellent question! Presumably the interest in heritage is motivated by a desire to understand the extent to which the success of the MPLMs (and other ISS modules from Alenia) predicts success for the Cygnus PCM program.

Has Orbital specifically said the tooling (e.g. formers, welders) Alenia used for larger diameter modules is being re-used for Cygnus? Similarly for test equipment used to e.g. examine welds for flaws?

Then, because the CBM is the same, is it fair to assume the same test equipment that verified the MPLMs as functioning pressure vessels can be used to verify Cygnus pressure vessel integrity?

How much value is inherent in Alenia's ability to get the simple stuff (like precise equipment rack dimensions) correct, with greater certainty than a "de novo" supplier could? From a business perspective, Orbital's out-sourcing certainly highlights their philosophical difference with "Everything Done In-House" SpaceX....

"Mitsubishi Electric Corporation has agreed with Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) to supply Proximity Link System (PLS) components to guide Orbital’s Cygnus Spacecraft to the ISS on nine re-supply missions for NASA. Mitsubishi Electric will deliver the PLS components to Orbital between 2010 and 2014 in a deal valued at approximately US$66 million (6 billion yen), making it one of the largest contracts tying a Japanese company to NASA’s space exploration program.

The PLS components, composed of transponders, diplexers and data handling processors, are essential for rendezvous control between re-supply spacecraft and the ISS. When the re-supply spacecraft approaches the ISS, the on-board PLS initiates a signaling exchange with the PROX (Proximity Communication System), which is built into the ISS as a part of the Japanese Kibo Experimental Module, and guides the spacecraft in rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. "

Careful... not all the volume is dedicated to pressurized cargo - some have equipment in the pressurized volume - and some of that is lost on the hatch mechanism/opening swept volume and the "free space" (space for the astronauts to get inside and get the cargo out - hint: Progress has NO free space: you unload it from the top down...)

You may be interested in this old presentation from the early Cygnus design days. ...

Thanks Antonio, that presentation is quite interesting. My list above was just trying to get a grasp on relative size of the various vehicles.